Mit - Index

Mit - UVK_Sinfo_2008_11_št.15 - Index

INterviEw
finalists. So the Slovenian team of biochemistry, biotechnology,
microbiology and medicine students in the finals beat Freiburg,
who came second and American Caltech; and the team from
Harvard was also among the finalists. If we judge from the point
of view of university status, the competition was really hard, since
the teams from eight of the ten best universities in the world
participated. In the last few years, the majority of innovations in
the area of synthesis biology came from this competition. Our
team has already filed two patent forms for vaccine preparation.
Moreover, the Slovenian team already won the big prize two
years ago while last year it was first in the area of medicine.
Altogether, the Slovenian team of all the teams has had the
biggest successes, since in three performances so far we have
always made it to the finals.
oN What baSIS do the JUdGeS make
theIR deCISIoN?
They closely examine the students, examining their understanding
of the project and checking whether they conducted all the
experiments themselves. At the competition, each team has
20 minutes to present their work, and then questions from the
jury follow. We are also the only team to have been in the finals
three times in a row; no other team has reached finals twice. The
students made the experimental part of the projects themselves,
with considerable support from the mentors. The competition
was really hard and I did not anticipate repeating the success of
previous years. The judges said that they were pretty unanimous
in judging our team the winners.
aNd hoW mUCh haRd WoRk IS hIddeN
behINd yoUR PRoJeCt?
Plenty. It’s a result of months of hard work and compromises
by the students and the mentors who are, unfortunately, not
additionally paid. We are very pleased that the judges noted this.
Our strong devotion to the work certainly contributed a lot to
the success.
The competition is also used to test new ideas that deviate from
usual approaches, and our main purpose was to offer motivated
and talented students work experience on a real research project.
In doing so, the students get familiar with research at a high
scientific level, and also with experimental methods, and can
compete with the best in the world; on the other hand, they
learn how to work under tremendous time pressure and realize
that such a project demands a team effort.
yoU aPPlIed to the ComPetItIoN
veRy late SINCe, yoU dId Not kNoW
WhetheR yoU WoUld be able to
RaISe baCkING FoR PaRtICIPatIoN.
yoUR bUdGet amoUNtS to oNe
thIRd oF the bUdGet oF the team
FRom heIdelbeRG.
That’s true. For the winning project we spent a large amount
of the money of our laboratory. I am certain that the subject
of the research in the project presents an important direction
in our future development. I decided to participate only after
sinfo 14 18
receiving confirmation from the Ad-Futura fund, which has
helped us also before, to publish again a tender for support of
such competitions which ensured a start with almost a third
of the budget. Additionally, the University of Ljubljana and
the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) helped - together they
contributed almost half the amount. We are trying to cover the
difference through business sponsors, but with great difficulty.
The entire project costs were around 25,000 euros.
aRe yoU SatISFIed WIth CoveRaGe
oF the SUCCeSS oF yoUR PRoJeCt?
I am and, on the other hand, I’m not. I realised that comparable
sporting success receives much more coverage in the media. I
do hope that our success will help in such a way that discussions
on science will be among the important topics of social
development. We want more support from business for such
projects, so that future teams will more eaily raise money for the
implementation.
What aboUt the dIFFeReNCeS
betWeeN the beSt FoReIGN
UNIveRSItIeS aNd oURS?
Despite our high achievements we lag behind in comparison to
the USA, where prestigious universities work as a magnet for
high technology companies. Many companies were founded
as spin-offs - seceded companies - founded by teachers from
universities who invited investors. We lag behind regarding
regulation, since establishing spin-offs is not regulated and
even less encouraged, and the number of the investors is
small. To raise the number and use of patents we still have
a lot of work ahead of us - with covering the expenses of
patent applications, which is already enabled by European
regulations, or with connections with other universities and
organizations that will enable connections with companies
and the commercialization of patents. We did not receive any
payment for our work; foreign universities pay their students.
Otherwise, the knowledge of our graduate study students
is comparable, but at post-graduate there is a significant
difference. In comparison, intellectual life at the best
universities in the USA is far more developed; the student
there are working more on more cutting edge research, the
professors are frequently visitors, and each day can choose
from 4-5 classes on the latest discoveries. We are also faced
with the problem of the location of faculties and institutes,
which are widely scattered; we do not have a united campus,
where the common exchange of opinions would blossom, as
it does at universities of comparable size in the USA. There
they say that that would be more than pleased to enrol our
students, since they have a good knowledge basis. I also
see that our students are far more passive, and they do not
actively participate in classes; in the USA, students ask more
questions, are more doubtful about the conclusions and, in
general, more engaged; but of course, the working conditions
are better if we compare the use of the funds per researcher
or student. Our higher education and also science research
system should give more support to the formation of bigger
teams, so that more people would be engaged on one project.
If the students had achieved such results in a very short period,
then what could be done by a group of qualified researchers?